Well I have said it repeatedly, be careful what you wish for. The state's view of marriage is a contract, not some sacred bond between two peoples who are hopelessly devoted to each other or some happy horeshit like that.

The only reason the State is involved in the marriage process is to oversee the property settlement when devotion gives way to apathy and finally the envitable I never loved you and I faked every orgasm!.

Right now if Frank finds out that Richard has been banging Julio in the pool house, Frank can pack his stuff and take his share of the goodies and go somewhere else. Once Frank is married to Richard, then you have the whole property settlement issue to work out and Frank may have to pay spousal support cause Richard was the homemaker while Frank brought home the bacon.

Strange article seems to be trying to say all Gay Men are alike. In real life, there are well adjusted Gay Lifetime partners, and there are over the top Rebellious Gays who are as promiscuous as alley cats, and for whom a Marriage would become a joke after 6 months. The anti Gay marriage folk fear losing their children to a lifestyle without hope for children/grandchildren 20 years later. They may have a point.

Hoosier, There are lots of problems with divorce law because divorce is inherently problematic. But I consider divorce law one of the great benefits that come with the right to marry. It provides a system of rules and presumptions to guide a couple through separation, which is presumably always unplanned and more complicated than people expect. It protects a party who relied to their detriment on the other. You can argue that the default rules in divorce should be different than they are, but the existence of any default rules makes divorce more orderly and fair than having no rules at all.

Hoosier, There are lots of problems with divorce law because divorce is inherently problematic. But I consider divorce law one of the great benefits that come with the right to marry. It provides a system of rules and presumptions to guide a couple through separation, which is presumably always unplanned and more complicated than people expect. It protects a party who relied to their detriment on the other. .

Joe, I don't disagree at all. My point is that proponents for gay marriage are not taking this into account and seem to be arguing for it almost solely on teh basis that they can't have it. It's more than shared health benefits and more favorable tax status.

It provides a system of rules and presumptions to guide a couple through separation, which is presumably always unplanned and more complicated than people expect..

Actually Joe, that is the money quote right there and I think is something that the gay community needs to think about. I will not assume that gay couples won't face the prospect of divorce in any less numbers than hetero couples and I think they should understand that once the I do's are said.

Like I said, it's one thing to ask Richard to leave the condo cause he was banging Julio but once married, Richard will be leaving with Julio along with a property settlement and possibly spousal support. It ain't all butterflies and daffodils is all I'm saying.

OK, if you want it spelled out, here's why it's illogical. Let's concede the point that there are a whole lot of men out there (of all sexual orientations) who would rather have unrestrained, promiscuous sex than be tied down by being married. Does it follow that men are more fortunate if they're gay? Of course not, because straight men aren't forced to get married! Men who want promiscuous sex so much that they'd rather not be married are in the same position whether they're gay, straight, or bisexual: they just shouldn't get married. For those men, the legality of marriage is a wash. But there are still plenty of men, of all sexual orientations, who would rather be married. Among that group of men, the ones who want to legally marry a woman are in a more fortunate situation than the ones who want to legally marry a man, since the former but not the latter are allowed to do what they want.

I think JAC is making a bigger point that this article appeared in the Weekly Standard, that respected conservative magazine versus the quality of the writer’s argument. Big deal. Liberal magazines have had their share of bonehead articles too in addition to flat out made up ones ;-) I’ll admit I found it pretty much parody just for the simple fact that anyone thrice married really has no business speaking on the virtues of the institution. Even as a conservative, I really don’t get the anti-gay marriage argument, particularly from the various churches. Correct me if I am wrong but I don’t think the state can force say, the Catholic Church to marry a gay couple and I think that point needs to be driven home. The JP marrying a gay couple will have no more effect than the JP marrying a hetero couple, at least in the eyes of the church because neither are recognized by the church. As for the institution itself, I’d say it’s been beat up pretty good in the heterosexual mode for the better part of 30 years. Once no-fault divorce became the rage, you saw couples splitting up before the ink was dry on the license. That’s done more to hurt the credibility of its ‘sancticy’ than allowing gays to walk down the aisle.

Hoosier: I hear you. I was in a six year relationship that involved sharing ownership of everything in a way that married couples do. When we split up I was glad we didn't have to deal with a formal divorce. But at the same time I can imagine that if there had been a disparity in power/money between us or malice had infected the break up, I can see how the marriage regime would have been really valuable to us (or at least one of us). Luckily we were able to avoid that (it also probably helped that we were dirt poor and didn't own much of value).

I don't think every gay person who supports same sex marriage personally wants to get married any more than every gay person who supports rescinding Don't Ask Don't Tell wants to personally sign up for military service. Its about access to those institutions if circumstances in our lives make them appropriate.

No other issue more than this one is going to keep the Republican party in the minority for the next two decades. Polls show that almost all below the age of thirty five are supportive of equal rights for gays and lesbians. Unlike the civil rights era where most whites did not have black relatives or friends, most people today, especially young people, have relatives, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, and friends that are gay. This makes discrimination against them that more personal. I do not know how many people who have told me "I use to vote only Republican but now I can't support a party that hates my gay son."

I suspect that the Republican party will continue to dig themselves deeper into this hole for the next six years or so before they will turn it around and start repairing the damage. Then we will have a lot of Republican office holders who will have to explain why in the past they were not really homophobes. Very much like Strom Thurmond after the civil rights movement was victorious.

Who are these "leftist" gay loving "liberal" radicals and why are they trying to ruin all the fun for Republican bigots?

Eight and a half years after their epic partisan battle over the fate of the 2000 presidential election, the lawyers David Boies and Theodore B. Olson appeared on the same team on Wednesday as co-counsel in a federal lawsuit that has nothing to do with hanging chads, butterfly ballots or Electoral College votes.

Their mutual goal: overturning Proposition 8, California’s freshly affirmed ban on same-sex marriage. It is a fight that jolted many gay rights advocates — and irritated more than a few — but that Mr. Boies and Mr. Olson said was important enough to, temporarily at least, set aside their political differences.

“Ted and I, as everybody knows, have been on different sides in court on a couple of issues,” said Mr. Boies, who represented Al Gore in Bush v. Gore, the contested 2000 vote count in Florida in which Mr. Olson prevailed for George W. Bush. “But this is not something that is a partisan issue. This is something that is a civil rights issue.”

There is no doubt that there are current Republican operatives who now understand the long term consequences of the party latching on to anti-gay ballot initiatives and gay baiting in general, but I still predict that it will take several election cycles before the Republicans wises up.

I also know that there are a minority of prominent Republicans, Ted Olson sounds like he is one of them, who have decided that they want to be on the right side of history and be counted as a supporter of human rights and not as just another bigot.

I also know that there are a minority of prominent Republicans, Ted Olson sounds like he is one of them, who have decided that they want to be on the right side of history and be counted as a supporter of human rights and not as just another bigot.

Judith - "Palladian may have an expertise in art, but his grasp of the female anatomy is less than convincing. As Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously commented with regard to obscenity, “I know it when I see it.” Sorry Althouse, this ain’t it."

"Very much like Strom Thurmond after the civil rights movement was victorious."

Or like former Klansman Democrat Robert Byrd.I hope there are more like Byrd than Thurmond. Byrd actually apologized for his past and changed his views. Thurmond never really came around. That's actually one of my fears in these culture war debates--that politicians will feel tied to positions taken now in ten years when the public has changed its mind.

You can always count on apologists like Palladian to bring up diversions like "Robert Byrd" and "polygamists."Here is your answer, Byrd was one of the few racist southern Senators who did not switch over to the Republican party during the 1970s and 1980s. He is not a beloved democrat to say the least. Also, racists like Thurmond and Byrd used the "polygamists" argument to argue against inter racial marriage forty years ago. Do you really want to be apart of that club Palladian?

"Byrd was one of the few racist southern Senators who did not switch over to the Republican party during the 1970s and 1980s."Bullshit.Democrats filibustered the Civil rights legislation, Republicans supported it.Too bad for the history of Democrats, but there it is.

"...racists like Thurmond and Byrd used the "polygamists" argument to argue against inter racial marriage forty years ago."Logical fallacy. If you think opening up gay marriage will not immediately result in a push to recognize polygamy, you're not terribly insightful.

Why is gay marriage a right yet polygamy off the table? My ancestors were polygamists before being oppressed by the federal government. Why do you want to suppress an ancient and natural human tradition?

Polygamy seems like one of those topics that makes people take extreme positions (its right around the corner! its completely unrelated!). I think its an interesting comparison but the answer is a lot less clear. I think the right to privacy that Lawrence v. Texas was based on could clearly be used to invalidate the criminalization of consensual polygamous relationships (which still exists in some states). I don't personally see any good policy rationale for the state to punish people who set up house in an unconventional way like that.

But I just don't see the "slippery slope" from gay marriage to polygamous marriage in the same way. First, you need a decent size group of people who care enough to clammor for such a right. I don't hear about many people seriously exploring that kind of lifestyle, let alone arguing for a legal regime to accommodate it. Second, so much of marriage law is about the reciprocal binary relationship. When you allow gays to marry, you just remove the gender restriction and everything applies just the same. If you were to set up a polygamous marriage regime, you'd have to create all kinds of different default rules based on who has priority and rights when one leaves/dies, etc. It would be an entirely different system that's not really like marriage.

Trey wrote"L.E. Lee, have you paid attention to what your President and Vice President have said about gay marriage?"

Obviously, President Obama is held in high regard by organizations and individuals that are fighting for equality for gays and lesbians. It is surely wise that they are not following the example of conservatives but instead acknowledge that battles for equality occur not in the moment but over time. It is not unprincipled to be prudent when engaging in battle in the political realm. After all, when Martin Luther King was pressed in the 1950s and early 1960s, he was forced to say he was not for marriage between the races even though we now know he thought otherwise. He had his "eyes on the prize" as they said back then. I have no doubt that in the not so long run President Obama will publicly state his support for gay marriage.

Thanks JAC for clarifying, I see what you are saying about the "I wish that applied to me..." quote. True, who is made better off by fewer choices?

Yet, my gut instinct is still to oppose same-sex marriage in favor of civil unions, in a manner similar to Schulman, but not exactly. I have to write this on the fly, so cut me some slack on the composition.

I think Titus is on the money. Relationships that involve two men will be different, by in large, than relationships that involve one or two women.

Yet, once male-male relationships are included under the institution of marriage, I would anticipate that over time the rights and responsibilities of marriage are likely to follow a different historical trajectory, due to case law and political pressures, than if same-sex, particularly male-male relationships, were not included.

The risk is not that men would want to exclude themselves from marriage, but they will exert an influence to change the rights and responsibilities of marriage.

I'm not even saying that all those changes necessarily would be undesirable, especially from the "male" point of view, including my own.

But I'm not sure that it's in society's short- or long-term interest to rush into lumping these groups together under a one size fits all institution.

I see civil unions as a way to extend rights and responsibilites without radically changing the dynamic within the institution of marriage after millennia, to avoid injecting all the expected and unexpected new political pressures, at least until we get some idea of where the same-sex constituencies would want to take it over mere decades.

"I have no doubt that in the not so long run President Obama will publicly state his support for gay marriage."

So he's a knowing, politically-motivated lying coward, is that what you're saying? You elected a liar, knowing he was a liar who wanted power more than he cared about his supposed principles. Disgusting.

Look, as a gay man, I am really fucking tired of my life being used as a political football by your repulsively hypocritical party, indeed by any political party. You think you have us bought and paid-for like two dollar whores, and that we're too fucking dumb to realize what's going on.

(My impression of Pogo)"My God! My God! This gay marriage thing is going to open up marriage between earthlings and space aliens!"

Just as relevant as your argument Pogo. First, we are not debating polygamy. Just as we were not debating it back in the 1950s and 1960s. Got it? Second, there is a quantitative difference between the two. Can you count Pogo?

Palladian--I agree with you but the Dems aren't the only party that plays politics with gay rights, including Bush and his full-of-shit campaign to amend the U.S. constitution, which he clearly never intended to seriously pursue.

"Palladian--I agree with you but the Dems aren't the only party that plays politics with gay rights, including Bush and his full-of-shit campaign to amend the U.S. constitution, which he clearly never intended to seriously pursue."

In total agreement. The Republicans have been just as guilty of it. That's why I said any political party. It always strikes me as worse coming from Democrats because they're the ones that pretend to care about gay rights.

Pogo,I am sure you think Martin Luther King and Abraham Lincoln were serial liars because they had to factor in shifting popular opinion and some time chose to be prudent in political battle. While you surely disagree, I think the country is better off because they did so.

"First, we are not debating polygamy. Just as we were not debating it back in the 1950s and 1960s. Got it?"

No, don't got it. We weren't debating gay marriage back in the 50s and 60s either.

I'm not being facetious. It's an interesting exercise in logic. If you accept the premise of same-sex marriage, then what's the justification to continue to restrict marriage to two parties? It seems that if you make a major structural change to an ancient institution, then you have to be prepared to accept the consequences of that change.

I've made my position clear before. I don't think the government has any right at all to regulate any kind of marriage, straight, gay or otherwise. Marriage should be a completely private institution without government interference in either direction.

Marriage is not an in-born trait either. It's a culturally-created human institution. There is no biological imperative for anyone, straight or otherwise, to marry. So appealing to genetics is not a sufficient answer.

"Yey Palladian, the Dems have really politically benefited in the past by leading on this issue."

Leading on this issue? Leading on this issue?! Fuck you. We saw President Clinton's "leadership" on the issue of gay rights. We've seen their continual "leadership" on this issue every time each of them asserts their opposition to gay marriage. If that's what constitutes "leadership" then you can shove it up your ass.

"Look, as a gay man,"

"I doubt it."

You doubt it?! What the fuck do you doubt? How do I prove it to you? I'm not about to get out my tiny forceps to find your tiny penis so I can suck it, honey.

First you use the issue of my rights and freedoms to get your pathetic party elected, then your "leaders" do everything they can to prevaricate and ignore the issue once they are elected, then you come along and say "oh they're just lying to everyone. Any day now they're going to spring out of the closet and give you your rights!".

Well fuck you, honey. My rights aren't your pathetic party's to give and take, nor are they for you or anyone else to use at your political convenience. We're onto you, scumbag.

Martin Luther King and Abraham Lincoln were pragmatic, but also human. Lincoln was of many minds about blacks; his position evolved over time. That's not lying or playing politics.

I dunno about MLK; I want citations proving what you say is true first.

But you clearly admit that Obama is a serial liar to the public about what he actually believes just to get elected. MLK never did that, not running for office. And I have never seen evidence that Lincoln lied about his positions.

You are right. It is completely irrational for me to wonder about a person who claims to be gay but also equates gay marriage with polygamy. That is completely irrational of me to find that odd. Now, I am sure that there was a slave 150 years ago who thought that a white man owning a black man was the same as him owning a goat.

Short of bringing Lincoln, Douglas and King back to life so they themselves can clear things up, you'll NEVER get any of the regulars here to give you a single point or admit to any conceivable error on their part.

Whenever you post a comment that refutes their opinion they either disappear or move on to another topic.

Oh, and if you keep disagreeing, you'll move into "troll" territory and that will be their line of defense.

L. E. Lee said..."Palladian, You crack me up. You are right. It is completely irrational for me to wonder about a person who claims to be gay but also equates gay marriage with polygamy. That is completely irrational of me to find that odd."

And keep in mind...he also thinks it is a matter of "choice"...in both.

"You are right. It is completely irrational for me to wonder about a person who claims to be gay but also equates gay marriage with polygamy."

I'm not "equating" them, Einstein, I'm saying that the government should not be in the business of marriage at all, and shouldn't be able to discriminate against gays, straights, cousins, polygamists or whoever.

"And keep in mind...he also thinks it is a matter of "choice"...in both."

No Gene Olson, I didn't say that. I asked you to point me to significant scientific evidence that polygamy or at least the urge for multiple partners was not genetically determined. You see, asking for proof to back up a dubious scientific assertion isn't the same as agreeing with or disagreeing with anything.

Pogo wrote"I dunno about MLK; I want citations proving what you say is true first."

This topic is covered in detail in David Garrow's great book "Bearing the Cross: Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference." I believe it came out in the 1980s.

Garrow goes into great depth about how King struggled with answering these type of questions knowing that there were traps to keep political progress from being made. Those who are always against progress and equality always put the difficult question first; "So, Dr. King do you think a negro should be allowed to marry a white girl?" During the 1950s the focus was on ending segregation.

I find it obvious that many of those who are always braying about how these issues of equality should be decided through our democratic institutions instead of in the courts are often the first to criticize those who get into the political arena and take on all of the baggage that goes with doing so. It is all to obvious what you are truly against.

Palladian : I want you to point to a reputable citation of a direct statement by either Dr King or President Lincoln where they clearly stated their opposition to interracial marriage.

Lincoln : I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever havebeen, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and politicalequality of the white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been,in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them tohold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say, inaddition to this, that there is a physical difference between the whiteand black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races livingtogether on terms of social and political equality. And in as much asthey cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be theposition of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am infavor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I sayupon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is tohave the superior position the negro should be denied everything.

Don't forget, everyone. LE Lee is a champion of your rights, the heterosexual liberator of the queers, the saintly and brave defender of freedom and human rights. That is, until you disagree with him and his entire agenda (whatever it might be). If that happens you'll be insulted, vilified, cursed, and even have your sexuality denied and cast as a lie. We're to be good little faggots, to be taken out of our closet when required and put back in at the convenience of the Party. We'll vote as told and bark when compelled and be silent when so ordered.

Polygamy destabilizes society because a few men monopolize most of the women. This leaves large numbers of single men. Countries with lots of single men with no responsibilities tend to have high crime rates and get into wars. They have to find something to do with all the single men.

It's also clearly awful for women's rights.

Polygamy is probably the most natural and longest-lasting form of human relationships. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

Give-it-up-Palladian.Going into the "I am now being persecuted" shtick is just making me laugh even harder.(Plus, you don't know my sexual orientation. Unlike you, I am not into identity politics. Well, in your case "false identity politics.")

"Going into the "I am now being persecuted" shtick is just making me laugh even harder.(Plus, you don't know my sexual orientation. Unlike you, I am not into identity politics. Well, in your case "false identity politics.")"

This is the level of respect that the LE Lees of the world afford gay people who disagree with them. Take note, friends.

Polygamy destabilizes society because a few men monopolize most of the women. This leaves large numbers of single men. Countries with lots of single men with no responsibilities tend to have high crime rates and get into wars. They have to find something to do with all the single men.So, logically, gay men marrying isn't an issue so much as gay women, which would have the same effect as polygamy.

It's also clearly awful for women's rights.Correlation is not causation, as they're fond of saying 'round these parts.

Polygamy is probably the most natural and longest-lasting form of human relationships. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.Well, no. Multiple wives, maybe. Multiple Mothers-In-Law?

Ha. I don't know enough about it. Just know that it's very rare. Probably not natural in the way polygamy is as women don't have the strength advantage men have. Men can force their wills on others in a way most women cannot. Based on what wikipedia says, it seems it has occurred at isolated times among isolated people. It seems much more rare.

A genetic basis for women and men wanting to have sex with multiple partners is pretty obvious I'm sure. It will be easier to discover than a genetic basis for homosexuality since our genes want to help us survive to reproduce.

It's about political power, Pogo. Dr King cared deeply about American blacks because he was one. Obama can be the Savior of the Gays at his convenience. When he gets around to it. You know. Maybe after 2012 or something. Meanwhile, keep votin' for us, faggots! I don't support gay marriage (WINK WINK)!

The supreme court's constitutional reasoning in overturning Georgia's Bowers case is the only connection between Gay Lifestyle and Polygamy, otherwise they are entirely different subjects. Polygamy is hated for its cruelty to the teenage boy family members who are thrown out so that their Dads and Grandads can get all of the young stuff. The Court's reasoning removes ALL sexual legal crimes from being legislated in any state that affects consenting adults having any type of sex.

Pogo, "Palladian" isn't a real person. He's a character. He's said before that he doesn't necessarily believe anything he says here.

Even if the person who writes "Palladian" is gay, it makes sense to question if the character being written comes across believably as a gay man.

I don't see what L. E. Lee loses by leaving. Why deal with a character when the author decides to write him as a troll? That's what the person writing "Palladian" is doing. In this very thread he's said he's taking trolls as his model to copy and replicate.

Perhaps someday his artistic abilities will improve and he will be able to replicate wit or charm. We can only wait and see, and like all good critics continue to give feedback until the desired goal is achieved.

@Jason: L.E. Lee may be a serious commenter or not. (Personally, I suspect it is just another sock puppet, but that's neither here nor there and I am digressing...) As to your point, L.E. is free to not respond to Palladian's taunts. I thought L.E. was doing a decent job of giving out as good as what was being served up but that's just my opinion.

I really wouldn't mind the Republican party moving to the center on this issue and supporting some form of same-sex marriage; however, Palladian has raised a very good point:

What is the argument against legalizing polygamy?

The fact that there aren't born polygamists doesn't really do it; why should it be illegal, just because it's learned behavior and not a result of genetic predisposition? And how would you prove that there was no genetic basis?

The fact that there isn't a large contingent agitating for polygamy isn't a good argument for making it illegal.

If 3 consenting adults want to enter into such an arrangement, what is the argument that they should then be denied the same advantages as a pair of people?

And can this argument be made by someone who also supports gay marriage, without logical inconsistency?

I'm not a big fan of polygamy, from what little I know of it, but hell...maybe I'm just a bigot. Jeremy, LE Lee, Jason, etc, please reply with an actual answer, not a parry or thrust.

Let's now all relax, take a deep breath in, exhale and relax and be present.

I am here to say Namaste.

One of the interesting points about gay marriage is it has only been around the U.S. for 5 years. Five years! And it is now in five states. States with the lowest divorce rates in the US by the way. For those of us that support gay marriage the progress has been great. I understand it is not fast enough for others. It will take time but I am confident and hopeful it will happen.

Not for me personally because that is not something I desire. But for my brothers and sisters throughout this great country.

Bill Clinton fucked up with DOMA. But during the 2004 elections when the vote came down to amend the constitution regarding gay marriage a large majority of the democrats voted against it while a large majority of the republicans used it as wedge issue and voted for it.

I predict in 10-15 years 1/2 population of this country will have gay marriage. California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, New Jersey, Rhode Island, New York and perhaps a couple of midwest states like Wisconsin or Minnesota or Illinois.

The rest of the country will be slower. But I do believe in years to come it will be a non issue. I will hopefully still be alive to see it but what I remember in 2004 with all talk about amending the constitution really was shitty and incredibly hurtful.

LE Lee quickly exhibited trollish argumentation, including calling people names and stuff.Looking at it that way, it struck me as an equal opportunity brawl. ;-)

Palladian's swordplay is most fun at these moments.Is it for you? Seems tired and dated to me. (DTL did most of the act before.) But then, I've never been overly fond of repetitive conversation-stoppers. YMMV

And re. the point of the original post: It seems clear that the article that JAC is skewering is partially tongue-in-cheek.

It also appears as though there might be some truth behind its "obviously fallacious logic". JAC says that straight men are at no disadvantage because they have the choice to either marry or remain single, and engage in illicit sex. But the author Schulman already pointed out that it's often not really a matter of choice -- that men feel compelled by societal pressures to marry. And as Titus pointed out above, it's not that simple a thing to get hot monkey sex out of a woman without the possible promise of marriage.

If gay marriage were legal, maybe gay men would feel that same pressure to marry. Maybe sex would more often come with strings attached. Maybe they'd find that the somewhat artificial constraint of lifelong monogamy, enforced by legal contract, is not exactly all they'd envisioned.

Not that I mind being married -- in my case, it allows me to have at least luke-warm monkey sex with a much more attractive woman than I'd ever be able to pick up at a bar. I'm just saying -- be careful what you wish for.

Many of my friends are more libertarians rather than democrat or republican.

They tend to work hard, are successful, don't look to the government for anything and are incredibly self sufficient. Their queens but definitely not welfare queens.

Many voted republican in elections (Rudy, Mitt) but during the past two elections they have voted democrat across the board. I know Palladian is an exception to this rule but that is where the gay vote is going now. Even the log cabin republicans have been having difficulty supporting the republican party.

And the thing is everyone knows someone who is gay, whether family, friends, neighbors, co workers. Once they meet us they realize that a large majority of us are not these characters that are running down a parade route wearing assless chaps. Yes, I talk crazy sometimes here but I am a professional who is really pretty normal. But I have never been to a gay pride parade, not that there is anything wrong with the parades. And once they get to know us that makes all the difference in the world.

We are just like you...except as men we like to suck hog and have rare dogs and our women like to eat pussy and have cats.

Blake -- I find the idea that there is no biological basis behind homosexuality to be hard to believe, just based on observation.

It might seem counter-intuitive for someone to be born with a trait that reduces their likelihood of reproduction, but these things happen all the time -- some people are born sterile. Others (like me) are born fugly.

And we see homosexuality in nature -- parakeets exhibit homosexuality, often when they become overcrowded (so maybe the evolutionary advantage is as simple as population control).

And here's one more (somewhat weak) argument: Gaydar. I don't have very refined gaydar, but some people do. It seems as though homosexuality in men often comes packaged with other traits that are sometimes readily apparent -- fabulous fashion sense, for example. Maybe these traits are packaged together in the same way that others are -- the way that lefthandedness often accompanies artistic ability, for example.

Certainly a complex set of behaviors can't be attributed to one "gay gene", but I find it hard to believe that a biological predisposition doesn't play at least some role.

Titus -- I agree. I know that the religious right is an important part of the Republican Party, but I've had enough of them. It was the religious right that finished Romney in the last election (Fuckabees...) And if Romney had been the nominee when George Soros sprang his October surprise and stampeded the credit markets and created the financial "crisis", the general election would have turned out very different.

I can see the Republican Party moving toward libertarianism on several issues, and this might be one of them.

Alright, I'm going to bed, to try to convince Mrs. Pasta to give me a little of that tepid monkey love.

Maybe when I get up, Jeremy, Jason, Titus, or one of the other outstanding liberal commenters here will have provided the explanation that I'd asked for earlier: Why should polygamy be illegal, and is this reason consistent with gay marriage being legal?

"Exactly. There is no logical rejection of polygamy. Once the definition changes, the boundaries cannot be contained."

Wrong. The basic argument for gay marriage is that you have a good, functional cultural institution (monogamous marriage among adults), and the current laws are simply an arbitrary and capricious barrier that prevents monogamous gays and lesbians from taking part in that institution. It's easier to add gays and lesbians to the existing custom of one-on-one marriage than to move to the ancient and arguably barbarous custom of polygamy. But polygamy may be good for women, in that I've got a lot of love to give.

As far as Ted Olson joining the gay marriage fight, I think that's a great thing, and should be welcomed. If libertarianism is to prevail over social conservatism in the GOP, it has to start somewhere, and the Federalist Society faction of the legal profession seems a good place to start.

The polygamy issue is a smear against gay marriage just as it was fifty years ago when it was used against marriage between the races.

We redefine social constructs all the time and that does not mean " the boundaries cannot be contained." They just get redefined, that is all.

If your argument is that if you let any redefining take place it will open up the possibility of other changes then I would say have more trust in the thrust of human history and our ability to reason and govern ourselves in an orderly way.

Clearly we are accepting gay marriage as being a desirable thing as most of us see the issue of equality more clearly and also see the practical effects among our family and friends.

If you want to have a debate about the merits of polygamy then fine. But most reasonable people see no connection between that and gay marriage or interracial marriage or marriage between non children bearing couples.

". But most reasonable people see no connection between that and gay marriage or interracial marriage or marriage between non children bearing couples."

You also need to admit that many black Americans do not see a connection between interracial marriage and gay marriage, and that the idea is highly offensive to many, including many in the Democratic party.

But you won't do that, because you're essentially dishonest and, as I have said, using one of the most personal and essential issues for gay people as your own personal political battering ram.

"You also need to admit that many black Americans do not see a connection between interracial marriage and gay marriage, and that the idea is highly offensive to many, including many in the Democratic party."

I'll say that's true, and an unfortunate fact. That doesn't mean that the connection doesn't exist.

Also, while I'm glad that Olson is in on this fight, I'm not 100% sure I want him to prevail. For purposes of legitimacy, I think it would be better for gay marriage to be legalized via legislative or popular voting, not judicial action. But, on the other hand, sometimes the courts must break the impasse, particularly when that impasse harms unpopular minority groups that can't expect the legislature or electorate to act on their behalf.

"You also need to admit that many black Americans do not see a connection between interracial marriage and gay marriage, and that the idea is highly offensive to many, including many in the Democratic party."

Your wrong. I do admit that there are a lot of bigots out there including a few that call themselves Democrats. Feel better now?

And as you and Jason seem unable to comprehend, it's entirely possible to discuss and argue an issue from another perspective besides a personal one. What Jason misconstrues as me being a false persona was my perhaps too flippant way of saying that it's intellectually interesting to me to play the devil's advocate sometimes. Nothing sharpens one's mind and arguments like trying to understand something from a different or even opposite perspective from your own. Conversation to me is a place to play with ideas and words, but apparently literalism is expected in blog comments.

I don't feel particularly strongly about the gay marriage issue, because I think the main premise of the issue, that the State should control and regulate a religious and romantic institution, is flawed from the start. I try to look at issues like this from the perspective of what will give the most people the most freedom. Imposing same-sex marriage is just an invitation to discriminate against the ancient religious beliefs of Christians, Muslims, Jews and many other religious and philosophical institutions. I think that religious institutions should have the right to choose their own doctrine and rules and not have conditions imposed by the State. On the other hand I don't believe that religious institutions should be exempt from tax, but that's a different issue.

If the State removed its meddling with marriage, then churches and religious organizations that wanted to perform same-sex marriages would be free to do so and those that didn't would be free to abstain.

I realize that this is somewhat Utopian thinking, but I can't really see any benefit from continuing to argue about the current situation which is just going to get more complicated, burdensome and unpleasant as society changes.

The State regulating marriage is ultimately infeasible and bound to discriminate both religious people and gay people alike.

Personally I believe that we as a nation have more important things to worry about, but these are the kinds of things that people love to get worked up about because the other issues seem intractable by comparison.

If marriage is simply a property contract, then make it simply a property contract that can be entered by any two (or more) persons. The religious and mystical definition of marriage can be left to religious organizations where it belongs.

First, the author's POV (of the article JAC quoted) reminded me of the old Playboy party joke: A wife is something you screw on a bed and it does the housework -- i.e. not very respectful towards women.

Marriage is indeed not something every gay couple wants to get into. The long-term couple I know long ago made legal arrangements for their property in the event of death or separation. If either wants to walk, they can do so at any time.

For tax minimization purposes, you're better off filing single unless one party makes twice what the other one does. Pay equality -- which most gay couples should have -- means higher taxes overall.

Redefining marriage will open the door to other redefinition -- what's to stop it? Polygamy is a natural -- it is recognized around the world in a variety of cultures. The argument that a woman should be free to marry the person she loves can easily be generalized to more than one woman loving the same man. Men dies sooner than women even absent war -- if you're 70 or over you could have a harem if you chose.

SOME BLACKS ARE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE. INCLUDING SOME DEMOCRATS. HOLD EVERYTHING GAYS. WE NEED MAY NEED DECADES TO DETERMINE WHY. IN THE MEANTIME HERE ARE SEVERAL RIDDLES TO KEEP YOU OCCUPIED. WHY IS IT ILLEGAL TO WEAR A FAKE MUSTACHE THAT CAUSES LAUGHTER IN A CHURCH IN ALABAMA??????

"If marriage is simply a property contract, then make it simply a property contract that can be entered by any two (or more) persons. The religious and mystical definition of marriage can be left to religious organizations where it belongs."

Which is where the current state of the law is. If a religious group wants to consecrate gay marriages (see - Unitarians or liberal Episcopalians), or refuse to conduct interracial marriages (see - thankfully, few churches outside of white-supremacist circles like Christian Identity), it has the right to do either. The issue is what the state recognizes, and the bundle of rights that results. And while libertarian commentary about the abolition of marriage as a state-backed institution sounds good, it will get nowhere in practice, so let's focus on what exists and is likely to come from what exists.

"Marriage is not an in-born trait either. It's a culturally-created human institution. There is no biological imperative for anyone, straight or otherwise, to marry. So appealing to genetics is not a sufficient answer."

Blake -- I find the idea that there is no biological basis behind homosexuality to be hard to believe, just based on observation.I specifically said "genetic". The "gay gene" was the hot thing in the '90s. Now they're looking at hormones.

Jason (the commenter) said... "Pogo, "Palladian" isn't a real person. He's a character. He's said before that he doesn't necessarily believe anything he says here. Even if the person who writes "Palladian" is gay, it makes sense to question if the character bein"

Palladian is a real person. I've met and spent hours with him in real life.

I do have a funny story. Two guys that had lived in my previous building moved out. I was talking to another guy who still lives in the building. The two guys, who are mos, had a dog like Niles Crane had. I rarely seen the dog. It was afraid of everyone and everything. The guy that lives in the building told me that in the winter they did not take the dog outside and would walk it around the hallways in the building and go up and down the stairs with it. The dog had a kitty litter box that it would shit and piss in. I thought that was so weird.

Titus: The reason gay men are able to have sex so easily is because they are 2 men involved not because they are gay.

THANK YOU @TITUS for stating what should be completely effing obvious to anyone paying any attention at all. Just check out lesbians compared to gay men. And let's not forget those babies the advent of which will enable the state to take one's check with or without the bonds of matrimony.

I think polyandry is going to make ever more sense over time. It is practiced in environments that can't support a large human population, or requires a lot of effort to survive so tribal families can't hack it.

So think:1. gender pay equity is turning out to mean declining male wages2. Gaia the Green requires ZPG or VHE

So, I would marry a small group of men. The variety would be nice. One gets uppity or dominant and I just move along to the next one. They can pool their paychecks to support me. And I will not be a groveling servant, we'll hire a maid and a cook.

Nice solution for countries with serious gender imbalance due to a high number of females aborted through sex selection abortion--India and China.

Nice solution for Western Dark Greens.

No religious basis needed.

There's people already setting up polygamous households, why should they be legally discriminated against? Pairism!